Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 312: Automatic Relay IPv6 Addresses

2020-02-04 Thread teor
Hi, > On 4 Feb 2020, at 07:17, s7r wrote: > > teor wrote: >> Hi s7r, >> >> Thanks for bringing up IPv6 address privacy extensions. >> >>> On 30 Jan 2020, at 02:19, s7r wrote: >>> >> >> I read RFCs 4941 and 3041, looked at the tor directory spec, and did some >> analysis: >> * tor clients

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 312: Automatic Relay IPv6 Addresses

2020-02-04 Thread teor
Hi Nick, Thanks so much for your review! I've made most of the changes you've suggested, you can see the latest version of the proposal here: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/105/files I've also made changes in response to s7r's feedback about IPv6 privacy extensions. Since sending

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 312: Automatic Relay IPv6 Addresses

2020-02-04 Thread Mirimir
On 02/04/2020 03:13 PM, s7r wrote: > These privacy extensions IPv6 addresses might be good for outbound bind > exit addresses (for Exit relays), and maybe (not sure) for regular > clients that could connect to their entry guards or bridges using a > temporary IPv6 address. Thanks. Those are

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 312: Automatic Relay IPv6 Addresses

2020-02-04 Thread s7r
Mirimir wrote: > On 02/03/2020 02:17 PM, s7r wrote: > > > >> In the current form of this proposal, it looks kind of optional ("We >> propose this optional change, to improve..."). I propose removing the >> line which contains "this optional change" and changing the following: >> >> In

Re: [tor-dev] CVE-2020-8516 Hidden Service deanonymization

2020-02-04 Thread s7r
juanjo wrote: > Since no one is posting it here and talking about it, I will post it. > > https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8516 > > The guy: > http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/868-Deanonymizing-Tor-Circuits.html > > > Is this real? > > Are we actually not

Re: [tor-dev] CVE-2020-8516 Hidden Service deanonymization

2020-02-04 Thread Paul Syverson
On Tue, Feb 04, 2020 at 04:15:23PM -0500, David Goulet wrote: > On 04 Feb (19:03:38), juanjo wrote: > [snip] > > And the reason for private nodes is probably because this way you eliminate > noise from other tor traffic so _anything_ connecting back to your ORPort is > related to the onion

Re: [tor-dev] CVE-2020-8516 Hidden Service deanonymization

2020-02-04 Thread David Goulet
On 04 Feb (19:03:38), juanjo wrote: Greetings! > Since no one is posting it here and talking about it, I will post it. > > https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8516 > > The guy: > http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/868-Deanonymizing-Tor-Circuits.html > > Is this real?

[tor-dev] CVE-2020-8516 Hidden Service deanonymization

2020-02-04 Thread juanjo
Since no one is posting it here and talking about it, I will post it. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-8516 The guy: http://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/868-Deanonymizing-Tor-Circuits.html Is this real? Are we actually not verifying if the IP of the Rend is a node